CONCRETE BRIDGE TECHNOLOGY
Dynamic Effects of Superstructure Mass
during Barge Collisions with Bridges
by Dr. Michael Davidson, Henry T. Bollmann, and Dr. Gary R. Consolazio, Bridge Software Institute, University of Florida
Elevation of channel pier and adjacent spans used in model for barge-bridge collision scenario. All Figures: Bridge Software Institute.
Typical section of superstructure.
During barge-bridge collision events, the
superstructure mass of concrete bridges
can influence internal forces generated
throughout underlying substructures. This
article presents a method for dynamically
quantifying collision forces and structural
demands and applies that method to the
analysis of an in-service coastal bridge.
The method and tools described here
can help engineers in designing concrete
bridges that span navigable waterways.
Modeling Barge-
Bridge Impact
The St. George Island Bridge is a coastal
bridge spanning Apalachicola Bay in
northwestern Florida. The southern
channel pier supports adjacent 250 ft and
257.5 ft spans. The post-tensioned Florida
bulb-tee girders vary in depth from 6.5
ft at drop-in locations to 12 ft above the
pier. Both the girders and the 47.1-ft-wide
deck are continuous across the pier cap.
The five evenly spaced girders each rest on
two elastomeric bearings that straddle a
cast-in-place shear pin.
36 | ASPIRE Summer 2019
For an impact scenario using this
structure, a finite-element model of the
southern channel pier and adjacent spans
(that is, “one-pier, two-span” model) is
developed using FB-MultiPier software.
In this type of model, all bridge portions
more than a span length away from the
impacted pier are simplified as springs
and lumped masses (spine model), which
are positioned at the far ends of the
spans. Spring and mass quantities are
automatically computed by the program
based on a larger bridge model that
includes several piers and spans. The
simplified “one-pier, two-span” approach
allows collision-related design forces
to be efficiently computed within a few
minutes using ordinary computers, and
the accuracy of this method has been
verified against more-complex multiple-
pier, multiple-span bridge models.1
Th e c h a n n e l p i e r c o n t a i n s t w o
6-ft-diameter pier columns spaced 30 ft
apart, which are braced mid-height by
a 6-ft-deep shear strut. The 52-ft-long
columns are supported at the waterline
by a 6.5-ft-thick pile cap. The foundation
consists of 4.5-ft-diameter prestressed
concrete cylinder piles (14 battered and
one plumb) with 10-ft-long reinforced-
concrete pile-top plugs. Each of the
62.6-ft-long piles extends through
medium-dense to dense sand, and the pile
tips bear upon a weathered limestone
layer.
Based on waterway traffic local to
Apalachicola Bay, a representative
collision scenario is formed. It consists of a
3666 ton barge/tug traveling at 6.6 knots
(11.1 ft/sec) and striking the 28-ft-wide
waterline footing head-on. FB-MultiPier
is used to analyze the collision scenario
by specifying vessel weight, impact
velocity, and impact location, and allowing
the software to automatically assign a
nonlinear stiffness to represent the
impacting barge bow. Both impact forces
and bridge internal demands (shears and
moments) are computed using this analysis
approach, which has been validated against
Model of impacted pier
and adjacent spans.

full-scale experiments conducted in 2004
on the old St. George Island Bridge before
it was demolished.1,2
Barge-Bridge
Collision Analysis
Using a typical desktop computer,
c a l c u l a t io n o f t im e - hi s t o ri e s o f
displacements at the impact location and
pier top, along with dynamic design forces,
Displacement (in)
is achieved in less than 10 minutes. Analysis axial-moment interaction) occur relatively
results show that primary contact between early, at approximately 0.2 seconds.
the barge and pier lasts approximately This phenomenon is due to dynamic
1.2 seconds, as indicated by the abrupt amplification of the pier columns’ internal
reduction in pier column displacements forces and is attributable to the mass
just after 1 second. The maximum impact (inertia) of the concrete superstructure.
force of 3148 kip is attained within 0.1
seconds and sustained for an additional 0.9 At each point in time, the difference
seconds, while maximum column demands between displacements at the impact
(shear and demand-capacity ratio for point and pier top produces lateral
Height above pile cap midplane (ft)

(a) (b)
Dynamic response in the pier columns: (a) Time-histories of displacements at the point of impact and at the pier top; (b) Profiles of column displacements
when maximum column shear and maximum column demand-capacity ratio occur.

ASPIRE Summer 2019 | 37

 Maximum internal forces and demands after dynamic amplification.
(flexural) deformation in the columns.
When relative lateral deformations
reach a temporary maximum (1.34 in.)
at approximately 0.1 seconds, internal
demands are likewise at peak levels. From
the onset of impact to approximately
0.1 seconds, displacement at the impact
location increases more rapidly than
displacement at the pier top. Motion of
the pier top is temporarily prevented
(restrained) by both the stiffness and
mass of the “one-pier, two-span” concrete
superstructure.
The phenomenon of mass-related
inertial restraint produces a temporary
c o n di t io n in w hi c h di s p l a c e m e n t
at the impact location is larger than
that at the pier top. Amplified internal
forces corresponding to this condition
typically produce maximum structural
demands. Importantly, the mass of the
concrete superstructure influences both
the collision force, 3148 kip, and the
structural demand, 985 kip maximum
total shear at the super s truc ture
bearings, or 31% of maximum impact
force. If the same analysis is carried
out with the superstructure stiffness
still present, but the superstructure
weight (10,783 kip) reduced to near
zero, the maximum total shear at the
superstructure bearings falls to 656
kip, or 21% of the maximum impact
38 | ASPIRE Summer 2019
Deformed shape when maximum demands occur (at maximum differential
displacement between bottom of column and top of column).
force. Pile shears will then increase
accordingly. In mos t common pier
configurations, superstructure mass
will draw d ynamic impac t forces
upward toward the superstructure, thus
increasing column and bearing design
forces, but reducing foundation design
forces. Since supers truc ture mass,
which varies from bridge to bridge,
influences the proportions of impact
force that flow upward (to the bearings)
and downward (to the foundation),
it is recommended that this mass be
includ ed in the d etermination of
controlling design forces for bearings,
columns, and foundation elements.
Inclusion of superstructure mass can be
accomplished either using an efficient
dynamic approach of the type described
in this article, or using more simplified,
but conservative, approximations.
Conclusion
D y n a m i c b a r g e - b r i d g e c o l li s io n
analysis results demonstrate that both
superstructure mass and superstructure
stiffness influence the distribution
of barge impact forces upward to the
bearings and downward to the foundation.
Additionally, dynamic amplifications of
column forces highlight the importance
of incorporating influences such as
superstructure mass into bridge design
processes. Accounting for the flow of
dynamic impact forces through piles,
columns, and bearings, including the
effect of the mass and stiffness of the
superstructure, is an important design
consideration for potential collision
events.
References
1. Consolazio, G. R., and M. T. Davidson.
2008. “Simplified Dynamic Barge
Collision Analysis for Bridge Design.”
Transportation Research Record 2050
(1): 13–25.
2. Consolazio, G. R., R. A. Cook, M. C.
McVay, D. R. Cowan, A. E. Biggs, and
L. Bui. 2006. “Barge Impact Testing
of the St. George Island Causeway
Bridge Phase III: Physical Testing
and Data Interpretation.” Structures
R e s e a rc h R e p o r t N o . 2 6 8 6 8 ,
Engineering and Industrial Experiment
Station, Univer sity of Florida,
Gainesville.
_____________
Dr. Michael Davidson is the associate director
of the Bridge Software Institute (BSI) at
the University of Florida, Gainesville. Henry
T. Bollmann is a senior engineer at BSI. Dr.
Gary R. Consolazio is director of BSI and
a professor in the Engineering School of
Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment
at the University of Florida, Gainesville.